From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


"The time must come when both Modernism and Postmodernism are replaced by more specific names."

Umm... no it musn't.

If there is no replacement then we are forced to live under these contradicting paradigms that continue to battle each other today. By defining the qualities that better represent our age we will be empowered and active participants in our own beliefs.

bilge sake[edit]

this article is shocking I havent learnt what post postmodernism is all about, it has one line stating it in a stupid quote. This post modern article needs to be modernised for the sake of the purpose of wikipedia.

Now shut up with the showing off of quotes and write about this bilgin theory so people can understand what the hell its about.

what a waste of time............

If you were trying to make a point, I'm sorry you didn't. In order to discredit someonelse's theory you better come with better ones. Watch your language.--Diego 14:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-postmodernism is actually a pretty simple idea. It says "Postmodernism is a real load of crap, but it did have some interesting ideas, so let's keep those that we like and incorporate them into a new version of modernism." — NRen2k5(TALK), 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Postmodernism is not a political platform. It's an attempt to describe experience. It's also a horribly abused concept, because of the glut of pretentious BA's. A new version of modernism would be modernism, but you can't step in the same river twice. Post-postmodernism is a marketing gimmick targeting the middlebrow book collectors. It's pure folly. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

maybe that's the point of the article? to show what a waste of time this concept is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As one of the authors mentioned in this article, (a) I think the term "post-postmodernism" is ridiculous, even rather horrible, (b)I don't think postmodernism is "a real load of crap" - that's anti-postmodernism (which I'd argue is dead)and (c) Wikipedia would be better off creating separate entries for performatism etc, even if they were fairly short, with links to postmodernism (and vice versa) (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC) (Alan Kirby)

criticism could be broader[edit]

The article currently includes two quotes from one critic who basically considers it a useless attempt to save postmodernism by stapling another prefix onto a pile of gibberish. While this is certainly one criticism, it's not the only one, or even all that interesting, since it's basically an extension of the criticisms of postmodernism, which are better covered there (with a brief mention here that the critics of postmodernism, especially in its academic guises, have generally the same opinion of post-postmodernism).

Somewhat more interesting would be coverage of people who either broadly defend the postmodernist project and consider post-postmodernism therefore unnecessary, or those who think some reaction is necessary but not this one. It'd also be nice if it focused more on the ideas rather than the term; there are disagreements over both, but we seem to mainly focus on the term.

Unfortunately I don't actually know enough about the above to write any of this. I just thought I'd note the things I was looking for in this article that I didn't find, in case anyone knowledgeable can expand it. --Delirium (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, as both the terms Modernism and Postmodernism (which are now, quite ironically, historical) are extremely fraught, differently sensed, and differently applied and were since they began to be used, it is more important for us to focus on the ideas referred to by Post-postmodernism than the term itself. Of course, this is difficult to do, as one indeed must discuss the uses of the term if one is going to "productively" describe the notions it designates. Many of the broader uses of the Postmodern label as a total Cultural-philosophical-epistemic shift within the "Cultural Logic" of the Industrialized world (particularly as related to media-dominated, digitized bureaucracies) INCLUDE many of the developments described under the term Post-postmodernism. The "New Sincerity" is a gushing, polystylistic, a-historical mash-up of canned, anachronistic references to "nature," "centered-ness," "holism" and "authenticity" that would - in they eyes of many of the main cultural theorists of Postmodernity - be seen as a perfect examples of Postmodernity. The digital, 'soft' engagement of internet-hooked "Pseudo-Modernism" fits squarely within a description of Postmodernity as espoused by Lyotard or Baudrillard. The fact that "metafiction," self-referentiality, over-irony and hyper-awareness of the conditions of speaking, acting, interpreting, etc. have dominated what is called Postmodern art, literature, cinema, etc. is just an early, critically-responsive tendency that was often (in its most extreme instances, and not at first in the 40s, 50s and early 60s) an attempt to innovate by responding to the theoretical formations of academics that described the nascent changes in the air. They saw these trends as those that were likely to ensue during an era increasingly dominated by engagement with Archives (the enormous growth in publishing, news documentation and library storage during the 20th C), ever-present and continuous documentation (e-mail, the Internet), self-indexing automated databases (like Wikipedia and Google), etc.

One has to remember that, from the very get-go, the major theorists defining the term Postmodernism (Frederic Jameson, Jean-françois Lyotard, Stephen Greenblatt, Susan Sontag (who didn't like it), etc.), were attempting to formulate a broad categorical designation that, while loosely epochal (i.e. sometime after WWII), would include many opposing and contradictory sub-trends within it and attempt to explain how these contradictions related to one another in such a way as to make them distinct from the previous network of immense contradictions, i.e. those of “Modernism”. They knew the term was artificial but found it necessary - often with a thinly-veiled doomsdayism - to capture the rapid shift of values and social tendencies that would, otherwise, perhaps be strangely overlooked by future – or rather, present – eyes. There is a feeling in much of this writing of either “O, ye frogs in boiling water…” or “No use marching forward, the music’s already over.” In this sense, such celebrity theorists of the 60s, 70s and 80s were in the SAME tradition as the early doomsday prophets of Modernity (Romantics like Shelley and Blake to whom we might draw an analogical equivalent in Borges or Stein), the major professors of Modernity offering a theoretical anatomy of its structures, while proposing possible innovations/improvements and warning against its detriments (Marx, Durkheim and Weber, to which we might analogize Foucault, Benveniste and Deleuze on the optimistic side and Baudrillard, and Lyotard on the pessimistic side - though it is important to note the Foucault, Deleuze and Baudrillard explicitly rejected the characterization of their work as Postmodern or pro-Postmodern).

Postmodernity and Modernity as Epochal-Cultural-Epistemic definitions are equally as vague, fraught and contradictory as are the terms Victorianism, Romanticism, the Enlightenment, the Baroque, the Renaissance, etc. One can find distinctly Postmodern moments in Goethe or Emily Bronte, distinctly Romantic tendencies in Rilke or Yeats. The dialectical method was, in a sense, Hegel's overwrought attempt to makes sense of the chaos and contradictory cultural tendencies within Revolutionary, Napoleonic and Congress of Vienna-era Europe under a series of single, comprehensive names. The tendency towards periodization and large-scale epochal characterization, that considers all contradictions as modal variants of a central opposition that progresses forward, has been with us since and, though repudiated on the surface by theorists of Postmodernity as no longer valid, ultimately informs their models of this order (though it obviously had its origins in thinkers well before Hegel). Of course, many “bridge” philosophers between Romantic and Modernist traditions – Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. – also vehemently decried the dry Hegelian systemizing – but did so, unlike most Post-structuralists (but not all), in the name of a hidden potency, energy, will, becoming, authenticity or potential within human consciousness that could overcome artifice. I would say the recent shift away from the disengaged, self-ironical, overly-critical style associated with (very often, intentionally) Postmodern stance, is a SURFACE opposition within what could be called Postmodernism. The particular form it takes is humorously similar to the parodies of Post-modern populism and sentimentalism (for instance, as a reaction to High-Modernist austerity and complexity) initially forwarded by cultural commentators that spearheaded the movement in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

In all, Postmodernism itself can be seen as a mid-level surface opposition within Modernism, bringing to the fore many of its already present minor tendencies: fragmentation, disorientation, self-reference, controversy and endless experimentation, to name a few. It also reacts against the competing premises of Modernism (in the same way "Romanticism" did against the "Enlightenment) of passive, Scientific Objectivity and autonomy from the biases of the observer, of the importance of “elemental structure” over surface and appearance. Even here though, Humanities research in the “Postmodern turn” became more and more documentary and choked in footnotes than ever before – suggesting a nervous binging of the very “objectivist” and “impartial” apparatus the theorists criticized. Also, the surface and spectacle focus of Postmodern kitsch – ́á la Warhol, Rosenquist and Thiebaud – is, slyly in accord with the Modernist rejection of Victorian “academicism,” “formalism,” etc., and the ultimate “denigration of the perfection of appearance” of a work in favor of a transitory appearance that would elevate action, expression and thought over painstaking, formalized renderings of natural surroundings as in Classicism and Neo-Classicism. The surface fetish of Postmodernism over ‘meaning’ and ‘authenticity’ associated with Modernism is actually an extension of Modernism’s denigration of images as inherently unimportant – in their formal specifics – in reflecting ritual, individual, spiritual or historical reality.

As regards the critique of Scientific Realism on the part of Romantic philosophers and cultural figures as well as Postmodern ones, the bias this time was located not in individuals or a specific position of an accepted practitioner of a discipline, but in the unquestioned theoretical foundation of analysis itself in the Social Sciences – or even Natural Sciences –and in the cultural formations they were said to reflect. Postmodernism, like Romanticism, was a reactionary movement, but – unlike Romanticism – primarily a critical and passive one. Like the Romantics, they decried this terror executed in the name of scientific ‘progress’ and saw this as made possible by the Rationalist (and even Empiricist) idea of inert truth outside of life. They saw such ‘progress’ as uprooting the very meaning of life and instilling in humanity a sense of bland detachment in the name of universal betterment. Unlike the Romantics, however, Postmodern thinkers did not turn towards Nature, an authenticity of the Self, of Becoming, the Will, Sentiment, Intuition, etc. nor endorse revolutionary programs set up to liberate any of these from the shackles of rationalized ‘Progress’. Instead, these concepts of innateness, intuitivism and subjective primacy were also challenged by as possible exponents of tyrannical thought-regimes. As mentioned, much of the critique was levied on the endless reactionary, revolutionary and revisionary programs of "Modernism" which the latter had borrowed from Romanticism, but to whose sentimentality and subjectivity it had reacted. Yet had not this prong of the Postmodernist critique been waged by Dadaism (a supposedly “High Modernist” movement) 40+ years before Postmodernism arrived? Similarly, Post-postmodernism, reacts against the accidental austerity, distance, resignation and over-awareness that came to characterize Post-modern cultural production with a "New Sincerity," directness or conviction. Yet "Postmodern" art, music and architecture itself was characterized in similar terms, as rejecting the rigidity and ascetic "purity" of Abstract Expressionism, Serialism or the International style, opting instead for lighter, more playful, even popular forms of quotation and polystylism - forms that were finally allowed to be direct and even moving (as in the example of Neoromanticism in Contemporary Classical Music). The difference lies in the means of reaction and the specific area to which it is addressed.

There are so many overlapping trends in cultural order, dominants that become subordinates, subordinates that become dominants, or enduring strata that hardly change. That's why the theories of cultural transformation that draw their epochal distinctions from broad technological change and material-infrastructural development seem to prove the most fruitful in subduing minor vicissitudes from climbing to the status - analytically speaking - of whole-scale overhauls. Post-postmodernism, as reflected even in the silliness of its label, is certainly not a broad overhaul of Postmodernism. Postmodernism itself, and perhaps even Modernism, are STILL conjectural designations that, in my opinion, are co-existent and, at times, alternating rhythms within in a more basic range of difference in thought paradigms that fluctuates in industrialized, technocratic nation states with centralized infrastructures and professionalized institutions of learning – a condition well underway for over 3 centuries at this point.Artisticidea (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 You have entirely too much time on your hands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 
Yeah, my god you suck, Artisticidea. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found this article quite ridiculous in terms of its historical horizon, especially in its use of "modernism" and use of "most scholars agree", a phrase that really should not be in this article when there is only few named and since "modernism" is terminology that is used for political, economical, scientific, philosophic, etc., history. The horizon of this article is very narrow and should be reduced to what it talks about: namely a current in contemporary art and pop-avantgarde art/thought. It makes too many judgements upon things it does not know anything about (i. e. modernism ... how ironic). I agree with the above criticisms. (Why did the above commenter put so much effort in writing their critique when they could have made this article (and the article on modernism itself) so much better by directly contributing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Barley quote[edit]

Taken this excerpt from an article about the Charlie Brooker scripted television programme Nathan Barley and wanted to propose it's inclusion...

Nathan Barley asks, ‘where do we turn, post-postmodernism?’, when we are all self-referenced out? Where do we turn when not only are all values bought and sold, but the observation that all values are bought and sold, are bought and sold?

source - (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasmus quote[edit]

Please take a look at "Beyond Postmodernism" to see another perspective on this topic

Dubious assertion[edit]

"the dominant cultural force well into the mid-twentieth century" - This is not substantiated. While I'd guess it's true for (what used to be called) high-brow culture in Europe and North America, that by itself hardly would warrant htis bald statement. Kdammers (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Explication of the self-evident[edit]

Both modernism and postmodernism are conventionally defined in terms of Western high culture (in its interactions with popular culture as well as with non-Western cultures) and it seems hardly necessary to reiterate this.

--Hastrman (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is especially a problem or issue when talking about post-modernism, which works to break down the divisions -- as You state. Kdammers (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A postmodernist would certainly refer to an irreducible plurality of decentered "others" to undermine dominant terms like "Western," "epoch," "dominant," "history," etc. However, I feel that an article about post-postmodernism must necessarily argue in the historicist terms alien to postmodernism (which has no way of explaining what comes after it in its own terms). It also might be more appropriate to discuss (or pursue) the postmodern deconstruction of Western high culture in the context of articles on postcolonialism or postmodernism itself. --Hastrman (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


' Polyconstructionism extracts the implications of Performatism, applies it to more than aesthetics, and then renames it something that sounds less like a synonym for "hypocrite."

Now that we've spent the last 60 years dismantling meaning, it's time to infuse constructs of meaning back into love, work, play." tHIS MUST BE CHANGED TO ENCYCL. STYLE.Kdammers (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced. I've removed the section. Ty 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How does this differ from Neomodernism?[edit]

  • Post-Postmodernism: "Post-postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture which are emerging from and reacting to postmodernism."
  • Neomodernism: "is a term that has at times been used to describe a philosophical position based on modernism but addressing the critique of modernism by postmodernism."

(It's all meaningless, fluffy talk to me, but from an encyclopedia maintenance standpoint, it seems a merge tag may be in order here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


I don't think post-Postmodernism exists. Most of the traits these people are attributing to postmodernism are actually traits of modernism that they're reacting to like all the rest of the postmodernists. That means post-Postmodernism is effectively just more postmodernism. The fact that's in reaction to a percieved negativity is evidence that it's postmodernism. I think the 1980's were the height of modernism. The split from the past; the proliferation of suburbanism over the entirety of the 1900s is effectively a split from the past; a departure from the omnipresent urbanism of the Old World. New Urbanism and New Sincerity are firmly postmodern. The "anything goes" mentality is modernism, not postmodernism. Postmodernism takes the best features of modernism and the best features of older styles and incorporates them. Not out of irony but out of sincere (notice the word) appreciation.

There is no such thing as post-Postmodernism. The people that thought there was just didn't have a good understanding of what postmodernism is and they got their dates wrong. The destruction of the WTC on 9/11/2001 -- the quintessential symbol of modernist architecture (built in the 60's-70's, by the way, not pre-1950) -- can be seen as the point in which modernism ended.

This article should be deleted. (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask this question, but you beat me to it: "Is there even the possibility of Post-Postmodernism? Since its eclectic nature allows for the integration of any idea, (old or new) aren't we doomed with an "eternal Postmodernism"? Isn't thus Post-postmodernism in fact Postmodernism as well? Are there any published opinions about this?" -- megA (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as there are serious third-party sources discussing post-postmodernism it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's a legitimate idea. There seems to be a number of sources that validate this and we can only report it as such. As for the argument as to whether post-postmodernism is really just postmodernism, well again if the sources discuss it, then that can be an aspect of the topic but it wouldn't in and of itself negate this topic nor require this article to be deleted (answering the IP's question above). Yeah, it gets convoluted but that's all we can do, I'm afraid. Let the academics fight it out. freshacconci talktalk 16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The WTC was not the quintessential symbol of anything while it existed. It was a big office structure. Most people thought it was ugly. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this right.[edit]

From what I understand, modernism was a belief that the products of then intellect could somehow create a utopia. One big example would be technology. Post modernism was and is an attempt to say hold up, radiation can kill you and plastic ain't so great either. To bad we can't drink from the rivers anymore. Maybe what is next is to see these things in the great what was, is and will be. To be the moment for a while. Shane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Making this Article useful[edit]

As we can see from discussions above, the whole idea of postmodernism and modernism were controversial enough that "post-postmodernism" probably shouldn't be written up as a solid idea (as if it identifies absolutely some kind of definite epoch that we're in) but rather as a critical tool that has been fleshed out among academics and cultural critics. I think that the situation might be made a bit clearer if we add some references to Jeff Nealon's 2012 book "Post-postmodernism". I was just looking at this today and was curious about the status of the article, which is why I ended up here. It looks like most discussion and substantive edits to this article occurred prior to the publication of that book. The useful think about Nealon's approach is that it puts "post-postmodernism" in line with Jameson's definition of Postmodernism and Jameson's mode of critique. If this article is worth having (and I think it is) and if we're going to maintain Wikipedia neutral-POV and other standards, it makes sense to integrate in some references to post-postmodernism as a certain mode of relating structures of capitalism to what they permit within culture, which is Nealon's whole angle. Not to say we should go exclusive on that, but it might clarify some things about what post-postmodernism is as a concept. I don't have the time to make any changes or additions now so am just posting this for the time being until I do, partially to see if anyone else has any thoughts. Etherfire (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)